Comments on: Part II of Kennedy Half-Dollar Retrospective

By: jim

jim — Thu, 29 May 2014 16:59:43 +0000

Once again, it’s about the coin, not the man or the President. The President was assassinated in 1963, the coin came out in 1964 hence 1964 – 2014. The bicentennial silver coins all had 1776 – 1976 (not just 1976) for the bicentennial so not a precedent.

By: also jim

also jim — Wed, 28 May 2014 18:35:36 +0000

What is the logic o the dates 1964-2014 – it seems to be a tribute to being assassinated for 50 years – since I believe he was killed by people within the govt, its kind of like them chuckling about 50 years of coverup. Its just weird, why not just have 2014 on it?

By: jim

jim — Wed, 28 May 2014 06:00:21 +0000

Don’t give up yet. While there’s been a lot of talk about the 50 year Kennedy it hasn’t shown up on the schedule either. Nor has any official announcement been made about changing the reverse of the silver eagle. It’s only the end of May…

By: dalereese

dalereese — Wed, 28 May 2014 00:47:34 +0000

What no silver reverse eagle sets this year 2014 …hummm…

By: Munzen

Munzen — Sun, 25 May 2014 16:31:47 +0000

I definitely hear you. Especially because politicians just can’t resist getting involved, the images (not to mention inscriptions) seem to be far more important than whether the coin itself is functional. For me the worst aspect is that each coin has developed a state-level constituency that resists any modification as “dishonoring” the person depicted. Remember the outcry from Virginia’s congressional delegation when the Mint first proposed new nickel designs for the L&C Bicentennial? I’m sure that Illinois would go ballistic over losing Lincoln.

Then again maybe that energy could be translated into putting Lincoln on a $2 coin. I’d personally prefer Teddy Roosevelt but I’ll accept what it takes to get us away from the wasted effort of making pennies and dollar bills.

By: jim

jim — Sat, 24 May 2014 15:05:48 +0000

That’s a question, not an opinion. I’m just saying the focus seems to have gone away from the coin and aimed at the man instead.
If the mint could only do the same thing with the penny…

By: Munzen

Munzen — Fri, 23 May 2014 18:55:43 +0000

“After 50 yrs are they trying to justify the Kennedy replacement of Franklin on the half dollar?”
This is just one guy’s opinion, but it seems in hindsight that the Mint couldn’t have done a better job of destroying the denomination if they’d actively tried. I admit I was as guilty as anyone in saving some of the new coins as keepsakes, but multiplied by millions of people around the world the coins were vacuumed out of circulation. The Mint and Congress then made things even worse by continuing to mint halves from silver even when the 40%-clad ones were worth more as scrap. By the time they were converted to cupronickel the denomination had vanished from most cash registers.

By: jim

jim — Thu, 22 May 2014 18:49:05 +0000

I don’t know, this sure seems more about Kennedy than the coin. Not saying there shouldn’t be some kind of retrospective of the President but look at the heading of the part 2 document: Military Service and Rise to Prominence – what’s the coin got to do with that? After 50 yrs are they trying to justify the Kennedy replacement of Franklin on the half dollar?